Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design (ID) refers to an argument brought forward by a group of scientists to address the issue of creation. It argues that unlike Darwin’s argument about natural selection to induce evolution, there has to be another ‘intelligent’ force that controls nature. Their argument is that the natural system is too complex to be controlled by sample aspects such as natural selection. While conferring with Darwinism about organisms changing in form, ID seeks to explain how the complexity of systems in organisms changed evolution. Intelligent Design proponents argue that there has to be a force that organized the complex design in the cells and organelles in the cells to form what we have today. They, therefore, propose that there is a supernatural being that designed the Intelligent Design and controlled its evolution (Dembski, 2002). In fact, the ID proponents have decided that there is a god who is the designer of the cell systems and controlled evolution.

The design is recognized in organisms by the virtue that there are other important aspects of the cells and other systems that Darwin did not explain. While Darwinism explained the change in form of a whole system in an organism, he did not explain how the smaller components of the system were changed to match the changes in the whole organ (Dembski, 2002). Intelligent Design argues that since the system is dependent on its components, it can only change if the small components changed as well. Therefore, there has to be some changes in the cell organelles and their components for the whole organ to change in form and performance. The manner in which the organelles are arranged in the cells to perform the tasks they do explains a design that allows them to perform these tasks in the way they do.

Some of the ID critics argue that the design of organisms is unintelligent (Holt, 2005). A good critique has questioned the competence of the ‘designer’, citing the example of a long laryngeal nerve in mammals. While a simple design of the nerve would have it emerging from the cranium and directly attach to the larynx, it incredibly extend from the cranium, down the neck, then loops around the lung ligament before finally going back to the neck and eventually to the larynx. The designer must have had a very enigmatic way of looking at things because a giraffe, for instance, would have a 20 foot nerve which would have been effectively done by a foot-long nerve (Holt, 2005). Another example is what is referred to as irreducible complexity citing examples of blood clotting process and complexity of the adaptive immune system.

The issues addressed by the unintelligent design may not have the best representation of the issues raised by ID. While Intelligent Design tries to explain some finer details such as the complexity of cell organelles, unintelligent design counters that with very different points of view, for example, the laryngeal nerve aforementioned. Intelligent Design also attempts to find answers regarding the theory on natural selection at the cellular level and not organs and systems. Unintelligent design disregards this aspect.

Intelligent Design may not be termed as a scientific approach to the natural world creation. This is due to the little proof they provide to their arguments and the inadequacy of supporting evidence. There can be no experiments or observation of trends of the arguments, thus, it does not adequately represent any scientific approaches. There are many arguments that the proponents have developed but there have been little offered to support their arguments. The design is more of a logical reasoning and not a scientific explanation.

Intelligent Design should not be introduced in the school curricula yet. This is because there is little to support the arguments and there can be more questions raised by scholars rather than understanding the concepts applied. It is, therefore, important to ensure that there is enough evidence and proof to ID before it is introduced at schools as an explanation of natural existence. At the moment, it should not be introduced to public schools to counter Darwinism but should wait until there is more support to the arguments.